It was reported yesterday that Vice President Joe Biden guaranteed to ailing Boston Mayor Tom Menino that sweeping gun control legislation would be passed by the end of January.

How sweeping?

A quick look at Feinsteins semi-auto ban legislation suggests that up to 75% of all handguns currently in circulation would be banned, along with 50% of all long guns.

Depending on its configuration, the AR-15 you already have would probably be treated like a machine gun. You would have to be fingerprinted, background checked by the FBI, and undergo a six-month license application process to keep it. And when you die, the government will seize it.

If you dont get an NFA license, you can expect the SWAT teams to descend on your house.

But, you ask, how could such rabidly anti-gun legislation ever get past Congress?

For an answer, look at what happened on the fiscal cliff.

The Senate would change its rules so that it could pass a gun ban with only 50 votes (plus the vote of Vice President Joe Biden) - or so that you could write the gun ban in a House-Senate conference committee on a must-pass bill. Democrats like West Virginias Joe Manchin, Nevadas Harry Reid, and Pennsylvanias Bob Casey  who will not have to run for reelection for awhile - will cast courageous votes for this gun ban.

And it will hit the House with enormous momentum - momentum which House Speaker John Boehner (who has already called for a dialogue on gun control) may not have the courage to resist.

But the first step will be to demolish the Senate rules so that gun control only requires 50 votes - or so that gun control can be inserted in the conference report on a must-pass bill. And this is where John McCain comes in.

McCain is angry that Kentucky Senator Rand Paul worked with Gun Owners of America on a variety of pro-gun issues that slowed down his defense funding bill. And it is no secret why McCain loves House-Senate conferences: Just last month, he and Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin used the DoD conference to demolish position adopted by Senate supermajorities, including the prohibition on indefinitely detaining American citizens without trial. Therefore, McCain and Levin are out to punish Paul and GOA for opposing his legislation to indefinitely detain American citizens.

So they are working together on a series of rules changes to, inter alia, make gun control a lot easier to pass.

The first McCain-Levin rules change would make it impossible to fight a motion to proceed to gun control legislation. Remember ObamaCare? Our last real shot to kill ObamaCare was by filibustering the motion to proceed to it. Once the motion to proceed was adopted, the bill became amendable and Harry Reid could play lets-make-a-deal.

The second McCain-Levin rules change would make it easier to add gun control to a bill in conference. Currently, senators can block a conference. If the McCain proposals are adopted, a must-pass bill could be sent to conference, amended in conference with a draconian gun ban, and then sent back to the House and the Senate on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

McCain will try to tell you that that would be outside the scope of conference. But scope of conference rules are never followed. Gramm-Rudman was written in conference from the ground up.

The third McCain-Levin rules change would block any amendments except for those Leader McConnell and Manager McCain proposed. All other senators would be out in the cold.

This McCain-Levin package must be stopped.

Senator Rand Paul is currently planning to offer an amendment requiring a two-thirds vote in the Senate before any anti-gun measure can be passed.

I know. I know. If it were up to me, gun control would not be able to be passed with 100 votes. But we need to propose something which will pass the Senate.

So this is the day of march. We saw, with the resolution of the fiscal cliff debate, how the diminution of the Senate rules (and Republican courage) can lead to historically bad results.

But if conservatives allow these rules changes to be implemented, they have no reason to complain when the rules allow them to be defeated in battles over the debt limit, the continuing resolution, and sequestration.

In those battles, the rules - which are now up for debate - will determine whether we win or lose.

Never mind the article. I read the comments following and I am aghast at the weakkneed responses. Imagine walking armed down a road and being met by a man coming toward you, also armed, who demands you surrender your weapon to him. There is no reason to debate in this instance or any other. The intent is clear and the act of defense demanded. No government has authority to disarm me in the face of my enemies or beasts of the wild for that matter. Is my level of comprehension so low that I miss seeing a bigger picture all of you see? Or is it a need to jaw-jack when others see only a need to act?

You need MEN, commited men, who are disciplined, organized and trained to go into unknown areas and go house-to-house to confiscate guns.

I can’t imagine self-centered, egotistical leftists who are willing to die on a hilltop for the glory of Buckwheat. They don’t exist. Given the choice of letting the mobs hang Buckwheat or bugging out, heading home and eating a jumbo bag of chips, the chips and dip win.

Sorry, DU. You lose, we win.

23
posted on 01/08/2013 4:56:22 PM PST
by sergeantdave
(The FBI has declared war on the Marine Corps)

“Warner, Manchin, Tester and Hagan being aboard at this point is pretty solid. And there are others, like Frank Lautenberg, Ron Wyden, Claire McCaskill and others, who have their own rules bills with similar elements.”

The purpose of the rules change is to get Dem laws passed without Dems having to vote for them.

29
posted on 01/08/2013 5:12:10 PM PST
by mrsmith
(Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)

The third McCain-Levin rules change would block any amendments except for those Leader McConnell and Manager McCain proposed

Look at the gun purchase stats for KY (someone posted them a day or so on another thread, I can't recall where).

Mitchie's up for reelection in 2014. In the state that (I think) has either the 2nd or 3rd highest rate of firearms purchases in the NATION.

He goes along with this, he's gonna be primaried by a serious challenger. If he wins the nomination (either by beating off a primary challenge or by KY GOP leadership fiat), a really substantial portion of his base is going to stay home. Say hello to Senator Ashley Judd ...

"...momentum which House Speaker John Boehner (who has already called for a dialogue on gun control) may not have the courage to resist."

The author should write romance novels. Boehner pushes for big spending, because that's what his political/regulator class constituents want. They're nearly all dependent on government for their incomes, but they also like their firearms. Gun control bills will receive the same treatment we saw during the last four years.

"Two of the leaders of the effort to reform Senate filibuster rules, Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Tom Udall of New Mexico, are now saying that 48 senators have confirmed their support for making the filibuster a real, talking filibuster. Further, all 48 have committed to reforming the filibuster by using the constitutional optionthat is, by changing the rules of the Senate with a simple majority of 50 votes plus the Vice President.

There are seven Democratic members of the Senate who have not yet committed to reforming the filibuster in this way: Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein of California, Carl Levin of Michigan, Max Baucus of Montana, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

You (should) know what to do. Contact Sens. Boxer & Feinstein today. Lets get this done."

yep, many places are going to loose their whole swat team to an ambush in their first few missions. They really have not done the math, “1 little, 2 little, 3 little indians” is going to be a big problem for them too.

36
posted on 01/08/2013 5:35:31 PM PST
by ClayinVA
("Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it")

I’m sad that the RINOPublican party runs RINOs that cannot win and consequently allowed Obama to win.

I also prefer an enemy I can oppose to a friend who stabs me in the back. In that sense, I’m glad Juan lost.

In either case, both parties have participated in debasing the dollar, circumvented our Constitutional Rights, and enslaved generations with their borrowing and spending. Both are guilty.

Juan was just one more loser RINO in a very long list of RINOs. RINOmney was the latest. He spent $1BILLION and couldn’t even communicate why getting free stuff was a worse choice than freedom and opportunity.

This is the mistake we always make and each time they
nibble a little bit more off the top.

If they want to do something, amend the constitution,
there is a process for that. Not this eating around the
edges until nothing is left, then what?
Just declare the 2nd amendment null and void?
It’s a shale slope and democrats want us to step
out a little further off solid rock. Don’t do it.

40
posted on 01/08/2013 5:57:34 PM PST
by tet68
( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)

And so are all the conveniences that allow them to be so confident. Ever have so many small, usually insignificant things go wrong at once that you felt that you must have a Kick Me sign on your back. If that happens over and over, and costs a little money when it does, nerves start to get raw. You start thinking about what you ought to do different. You go on defense.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.